EDAL case summaries
As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy.
Following on from a Rule 39 measure from the European Court of Human Rights preventing the transfer of the applicant to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, the Tribunal ordered the police prefect to register the applicant's claim for asylum in France.
There are systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum procedure and in its reception conditions for asylum applicants which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
It is within the powers of the interim relief judge to order urgent measures to stop serious and illegal harm to fundamental rights of migrants in Calais.
The applicant had sufficiently established that if returned to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation he would not benefit from an examination of his asylum application in line with procedural guarantees as required by the right to asylum. Such a transfer decision thus violated Article 4 of the Charter.
The considerable delays of receiving an appointment at the Prefect in order to register an asylum application means that applicants are deprived of legally entitled guarantees, notably material ones. Consequentially such delays constitute a serious and manifestly illegal infringement upon the fundamental right to asylum.
The Police Prefect must register the asylum application within 10 days of the notification of this decision.
The Applicants asked the Administrative Tribunal of Lille (the “Tribunal”) to order the relevant authorities to take urgent interim relief measures to guarantee the fundamental freedoms of the population of the Calais camp.
The Administrative Judge acceded to several of the applicants’ demands (identification of vulnerable minors, hygiene, cleanliness, emergency vehicle access) and held that the situation in the Calais camp constituted a grave and blatantly illegal breach of the right of the persons residing there not to be subjected to degrading and inhuman...
On appeal to an Administrative Court, the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of newly presented evidence by a claimant to a Tribunal is on the adverse party, in the present case the Prefect. A third country national can be returned to a country where he/she can be lawfully admitted. However, as provided by Article L.513-2 of the French Code on Entry of Foreigners and Right to Asylum, a third country national cannot be returned to a country if the latter proves that his/her life or freedom would be threatened or he/she would be exposed treatments contrary to Article 3...
The court overturned a decision to transfer the Applicant to his first country of asylum, Italy, on the grounds that the Prefect failed to demonstrate that Italy would have given the Applicant the relevant assurances as to appropriate reception conditions.
The court took into account the personal circumstances of the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Prefect’s arguments were not adapted to the circumstances of the Applicant and were too general to demonstrate that transferring the Applicant to the Italian authorities would not have a substantial impact on the Applicant’s...
The case concerns an appeal of an Algerian woman to the Council of State, against a decision taken on the 17 June 2013 by the National Court of Asylum (CNDA), who rejected the appeal against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Person’s (OFPRA) decision concerning the applicant’s application for asylum.
The Council of State annulled the decision of the CNDA, stating that before finding the existence of a reasonable possibility for the applicant to find internal protection in another region of her country of origin, the Court should have looked into which...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment filterInhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Dublin Transfer 10
- Subsidiary Protection 9
- Reception conditions 8
- Effective access to procedures 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Responsibility for examining application 6
- Material reception conditions 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Detention 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Individual threat 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Country of origin 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Internal protection 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Request to take back 2
- Serious harm 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Race 1
- Real risk 1
- Residence document 1
- Return 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Kosovo 4
- Afghanistan 3
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Armenia 2
- Nigeria 2
- Algeria 1
- Cameroon 1
- Guinea 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Serbia 1
- Sudan 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance